Sunday, July 31, 2005
Those Stupid Austrian Museum People...
Why are there so many stupid people exactly like this the world over? Now we have a display of the Austrian version.
I'm going to copy here my comment to qkl re stupid versus intelligent people because, by coincidence, it's pertinent:
I've already written about why the Austrian museum people are so stupid in many related posts (check out also the posts they link to, if interested): Offensive Last Supper Ad Banned by Churches in France; The Power of a Look; There's more to Nipplegate than meets the naked eye; What has the women´s movement achieved that remained today in our lives? ; Hardcore Hypocrisy - CSUC Fraternity's Porn Film Angers University Officials; Not Sure What Kind of Revolution Has Hit Iran ; The Disappearing Act of Female Athletes´ Clothing; What Liberals Just Don´t Get - It´s Your Destructive Culture; Equal Topless Protection in California ; Liberals and Aggression;
Here is a discussion I had with a hardcore liberal (Luke) at WorldMag re nakedness:
me:And on a similar vein...
As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a lawyer's group is pressing for a "topless sunbathing" bill at the request of a female attorney who insists that it is sex discrimination to allow men, but not women, to go topless in public.
"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," Liana Johnsson said.
=================================
Is it something in the California water supply? Don't we have more important issues than these braindead "pseudo-equality" contests?
I imagine this attorney is already consumed with her next equality bill, "Stand up for your rights!" This is the one about the state violating your equal right to utilize restrooms openly standing up alongside other women.
We know... at some point, men became liberated and stood up and women didn't.
Or maybe it was the other way around, women sat down, or they both stood up and then sat down, I don´t know, I wasn´t around at the time. Anyways, time to "Stand to Reason!" Aren´t we glad Liana is here to do it?
Posted by: Alessandra at March 6, 2005 09:21 AM
Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 12:08 PM
Luke: "Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?"
Ever notice something a little bit different about the structure of the female breast?
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 01:03 PM
KJS, please explain what exactly about the structure of the female breast makes it less suitible to public display. why should I merely except that it's difference makes it some how more obscene when exposed. after all my ear is far more different form my hand than the male breast is to the female, yet these difference does not seem to affect the way I can display them.
Also does your analysis take fat men, whose own breast look very much like a womyn's into account. Are these breast less suitable for diplay? What about a very flat chested womyn? Shouldn't she meet the structure you say is needed before one can walk around the beach topless?
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 02:50 PM
Luke: "Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?"
Ever notice something a little bit different about the structure of the female breast?
============================
Indeed KJS, and did you ever notice that these "liberate their breasts" people are always the first to call indigenous women hideous for having bare breasts below their waists?
Apparently there are some indigenous communities where the women carry their babies high on their backs, and they swing around a breast to feed the baby, while the mother continues working.
What is the reaction of these "breast liberator" people when you tell them this? EEEwwww.
As if there could be anything more natural and maternal than breastfeeding and having the breast elongate because of this function. Our culture continues to be just as demented about certain body parts and their shapes as the Chinese foot-binding people were.
Same thing with body-hair shaving. I've always found it intriguing how enormously significant shaving is within our culture and why it has become one of the biggest male/female differentiators. (I'm not saying it needs to be different, just noting how significant a symbol it is).
Posted by: Alessandra at March 6, 2005 02:58 PM
Luke: "KJS, please explain what exactly about the structure of the female breast makes it less suitible to public display. why should I merely except that it's difference makes it some how more obscene when exposed. after all my ear is far more different form my hand than the male breast is to the female, yet these difference does not seem to affect the way I can display them."
Your lack of logic is on display once again, but I know that logic is an intolerably oppressive force to you. Nonetheless, I press on. The breast itself is not obscene, and you would do well not to assume that I have some irrational horror of the female body. However, basic standards of modesty dictate that body parts whose usual function is either to excrete or secrete remain covered. The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe. This is the difference in structure to which I refer, not the mere physical shape.
The move to "liberate women" by insisting that they be able to uncover in just the same way as men is just another development in the trend downplaying the real differences that exist between men and women. All that it ends up doing, ultimately, is masculinizing women and feminizing men, making for a rather confused society.
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 03:55 PM
Luke, do you actually remember the 1960's? I didn't think you were older than me. If a person is dressed as a woman but is actually a surgically altered man, and wants to use the women's bathroom, how would anybody know this isn't a woman? How do any of us know that the people who use the same restrooms as us actually have the same kind of plumbing as we do? And what business is it of ours anyway if they have their body parts natural born or surgically enhanced or completely renovated? If they look like they are women and they use the women's restroom and they behave respectfully like most women do, then what is the problem? I think transgendered people should quit trying to force the world to treat them with kid gloves and act like normal people, get on with their lives. But if they make bathroom gender neutral then I will find an alley, a dumpster, a coffee can, some other place to risk arrest rather than stand in line in a common bathroom with strange men. That is so completely offensive and shameful to me. Where are some people's sense of decency?
Posted by: Lucia at March 6, 2005 04:30 PM
An amusing conversation where people's hang-ups conderning body parts and functions are on display.
The suit in California is similar to one lauched in Onatario several years ago in which the woman won the right to appear topless in public as long as it wasn't for finiancial gain. The sky has fallen as unfortuantely not enough women have decided to exercise this particualr right.
Inherent in the above and in any discussion of body parts/funcitons in the public arena is the desire to demystify and/or desexualize the human body. In many cases, most people become more comfortable with their selves and others around them and less sacrosanct in view of their privacy.
the parnoid tendcies exhibited here in regards to public toilets has been propagated in most parts by the media's generated climate of fear. By reporting every gruesome and oddly sexualized assault (to drive sales and advertsing), the odds of such attacks are grossly over percieved. The result has been a culturally genreated fear of the 'other' be s/he sexuully different, racially different or simply strange looking.
Posted by: hrw at March 6, 2005 05:45 PM
Alessandra, that doesn't sound gross to me at all-
"The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe."
If you have a surgical breast enhancement than the breast can't serve that function anymore! Can we expose fake female breasts? Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts. And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby.
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 08:15 PM
Luke: "Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts."
Pores are not a body part. And it's patently obvious why we don't insist on covering up noses, eyes, and mouths, whose usual function is not to secrete or excrete at any rate.
Luke: "And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby."
That's because it can be uncovered when it's necessary to use, much as you can unzip to take a piss in the bathroom.
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 08:50 PM
None of those functions as reason why we cover up female breasts! You all know the answer you just don't want to say it. "girls that show there titties are whores! but it's ok for boys because we have double standards!" SIMPLE---
But you people would rather talk about secretions because you know the actual answer sounds stupid!
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 09:52 PM
Hmmm Luke is pretending boys and girls have the same anatomy, then abusing people for noticing he's wrong. How amusing.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 7, 2005 10:43 AM
Luke: the difference between male and female breasts is that male breasts belong to men, and female breasts belong to women.
No other reason to make a distinction really needs to be "justified." The fact that men AREN'T women and women AREN'T men is enough basis on which to make a distinction.
Now whether you choose to agree with making that distinction is another matter, but if you're going to argue about it, you'd need to show why it is actually wrong to make it.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 7, 2005 11:10 AM
Luke: "But you people would rather talk about secretions because you know the actual answer sounds stupid!"
I did mention something about "modesty," didn't I? Women who walk around baring their breasts are extraordinarily immodest.
But really, Luke, do you think we all ought to run around naked? Do you have some reason men and women should cover up at all? All you're doing is being your typical, shrill, unreasoning self.
Posted by: KJS at March 7, 2005 12:04 PM
hrw:
the parnoid tendcies exhibited here in regards to public toilets has been propagated in most parts by the media's generated climate of fear.
==============================
Actually if you take into account toilets, locker rooms, gyms, and barracks - this is no paranoia. There are a considerable number of same sex harassment cases happening all the time, thanks to homos and bisexuals. Most of the cases don't get formally complained about, most never go to trial, and most never make it in the media. If the media ever decided to make a scandal out of this issue,
they could broadcast 50 cases a day easily. It would be just like the Catholic Church abuse scandal, everyone saying, "why didn't anyone speak about this before..."
Posted by: Alessandra at March 7, 2005 12:28 PM
Alessandra,
If all this same-sex harassment is going on "under the radar", how is it that you know so much about it?
I'm a straight male who's belonged to gyms and athletic clubs all my life and I've never observed even one incident of the harassment you claim is so rampant. And none of my male friends have either. My wife belongs to the Y, and she said she doesn't see the things going on that you claim.
Also, if you're a woman, how do you know what goes on in a men's locker room anyway?
What I really suspect is that you're engaging the in the all too familiar anti-gay "baiting". Such behavior is more appropriate for godhatesfags.com.
Posted by: Remington at March 7, 2005 06:28 PM
Jane, we are talkign about why it is ok for men to show there breasts but not womyn. Perhaps you were confused, but i was never saying that there were no differences, only that the reasons those difference translate into different costomes about sun bathing is very stupid. Try to say on top of things please.
"Women who walk around baring their breasts are extraordinarily immodest."
"how is it that you know so much about it?'
Oh, Remington Alessandra is very in the know, if you check the archives for a trhead called "slippery slope" you'll find out all sorts of interesting things about gay judges---Alessandra is actually a fount of information. Actually i think i saved it on my computer! I'll just repost it!
Why is that? No one seems to call the men immodest. In fact it's usually the accepted norm that men are topless around swiming pools and beaches- And there are legal differences as you have seen. Even if we assuem that men that walk around topless are immodest, why is it legal for men to be immodest and not womyn?
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 12:08 AM
Remington, how many children have you observed being abused?
And if you haven't, or you are going to lie that you haven't, then we have to take your great "observation experience of not seeing any child being abused" as what constitutes reality?
I'm sure you've seen women being abused and raped, since you love pornography, not that you would care to know when abuse was happening in pornography production, but let's leave out porn and ask you how many women have you watched being raped? And if you haven't that means no woman was ever raped?
And, just to diminish your ignorance and homo-obsession, there are reports and studies about same sex sexual harassment. You don't have to be a man to get info on male same sex harassment or to view it first hand.
I also don't doubt that even if you had your eyes open to a scene of homo harassment, you wouldn't see it, cognitively speaking. Your homo-fanaticism overrides reality by a long-shot.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:17 AM
Remington,
Also, you should talk to more people other than your wife and your 2 friends if you would like to know what happens in the world. But a fanatical bigot doesn't need information to shape his views, you're like that saying, you never let facts and information get in the way of your convictions.
And there is another interesting thing about observation, people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:33 AM
Luke,
Homo saunas, SM, rape, promiscuity, reckless spread of STDs, child and adolescent abuse, sexual
harassment, battering, murder, prostitution are all real problems that exist in the GLBT population. It sure makes you uncomfortable to read about it, doesn't it?
Your homo-fanaticism is based, in part, on a great irresponsibility and inability to deal with reality.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:37 AM
"there are reports and studies about same sex sexual harassment."
Can you provide us with links to some? the hournal articles they are published in, or even to some abstracts?
"But a fanatical bigot doesn't need information to shape his views,"
HA ha ha ha---Thaken in concert with your little story above this is really funny!
"people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either."
What's you warrant for this claim? I mean, I understand you wanna accuse remington of sexual harassment, but do you have any reasons why people should believe this is true?
"It sure makes you uncomfortable to read about it, doesn't it?"
Actually reading your littel story makes me laugh like crazy- Your bigotry is surely not informed by fact and your depiction of the adverage gay person is all the proof I need. Do you even think it's POSSIBLE to spread HIV to 50 people in one night? I love the fact that you go on these rants! They remind me not to take the world, and especially conservative christians to seriously. I mean, do you think you would be able to get even the Family Research Counsil to validate your depiction! Girl, Exodus International would call you crazy! Seriously, is your name Alessandra Phelps?
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 11:56 AM
Luke:
"Can you provide us with links to some? the hournal articles they are published in, or even to some abstracts?"
==============================
You mean you're so ignorant about sexual harassment studies you haven't read a single one? You don't even know where to look for them? You've never read a confidential report on the subject?
Maybe you should go to school, Luke. Or ask for your local librarian to teach you how to do document research. Or you can post here that great article you read somewhere that says there is no same sexual harassment in the world. Nor rape, nor prostitution, nor battering, nor murder, nor abuse, nor anything else you have trouble facing.
===================================
"people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either."
Luke: "What's you warrant for this claim? I mean, I understand you wanna accuse remington of sexual harassment, but do you have any reasons why people should believe this is true? "
I'm not accusing Remington of sexual harassment, just noting that a person can be in denial of what they practice and consequently of what other people practice as well. My warrant is called human psychology - specifically questions of denial.
Luke: "Do you even think it's POSSIBLE to spread HIV to 50 people in one night? I love the fact that you go on these rants! "
If you took the fictional story that is full of examples of real violence in the GLBT population as a factual account of just one person, you missed the point.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 01:04 PM
Alessandra, that doesn't sound gross to me at all-
"The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe."
If you have a surgical breast enhancement than the breast can't serve that function anymore! Can we expose fake female breasts? Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts. And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby.
================================
Luke, you're pointing out to cultural conventions. There are both practical reasons and just other cultural reasons why we have the dress norms we do. The thing is they are very deeply ingrained. Just like other private parts. A man who goes around naked in our culture is not liberating himself, he is offending other people. A woman going topless does nothing in terms of "liberation." I think what society faults more is in respecting women, listening to women, fostering women's dignity. Showing breasts doesn't accomplish that.
It's just aping men. That's why I don't think it's "liberating," it's more like the penis envy complex. It wouldn't be different than saying that women had to wear a suit and tie to liberate themselves.
Aside from questions of modesty, which play here as well with the breast thing. Our culture has serious problems with degrading women and part of that is done through oppressive slutty dressing, very little immodest dressing, sexually objectifying dressing.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 01:15 PM
"You mean you're so ignorant about sexual harassment studies you haven't read a single one?"
I would like to know which ones you have read, please. You were after all the first one to mention these reports- What i have read would seem to conflict a great deal with your portrayal. You could share your sources with me, and continue this dialogue or we can stop talking to each other-
"If you took the fictional story that is full of examples of real violence in the GLBT population as a factual account of just one person, you missed the point."
well what was the pint of saying it was 50 people, Alessandra. Do enlighten us! Could it have something to with the fact that a gay who gives HIV to 50 people is more evil than one who gives it to just one? And you did want to portray the most evil gay man you could didn't you? Given that your story is a lie, what is it's purpose?
"There are ...practical reasons ...why we have the dress norms we do."
She's sunbathing in the summer! Assuming she's wearing sunscreen please give on praticle reason for a LAW require her breasts be covered.
And i'm not refuting that there ARE cultural norms- I'll give you that one. My question to which you all have had ZERO answer is--WHY DO THOSE NORMS EXIST?
"I think what society faults more is in respecting women, listening to women, fostering women's dignity. Showing breasts doesn't accomplish that."
The womyn isn't trying to FOSTER DIGNITY- She's trying to have the same rights, to sunbath without tan lines on her chest that men have- It's not about dignity- it's about the "undignified" things we allow men to do, but BAR womyn from- In our history, one of those "undignified" things was VOTING- Conservatives made the arguement that politics was a nasty place that would not bring your "dignity" to womyn and so refused suffrage.
"It wouldn't be different than saying that women had to wear a suit and tie to liberate themselves.
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 02:02 PM
Luke,
No - Alessandra is a "fag hater". She would be in good company with Rev. Fred Phelps. There is no reasoning with an ignorant hatemonger like her.
Posted by: Remington at March 8, 2005 09:46 PM
The womyn isn't trying to FOSTER DIGNITY- She's trying to have the same rights, to sunbath without tan lines on her chest that men have- It's not about dignity- it's about the "undignified" things we allow men to do, but BAR womyn from
=========================================
But my point is if you degrade people in society, if you trample on their dignity, you have done harm. If you don't foster dignity, you also do harm. We need dignity, composure, modesty. Fostering dignity is much more important than some lack of tan lines. BTW, why do you think tan lines are bad? Isn't that just a silly beauty convention you adopted? Also, why is someone who is claiming to be fighting for "equality of rights" not concerned about dignity and respect? Isn't that a major contradiction? Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?
"My question to which you all have had ZERO answer is--WHY DO THOSE NORMS EXIST?"
That's not true. There were answers. One was, "Luke, you're pointing out to cultural conventions. There are both practical reasons and just other cultural reasons why we have the dress norms we do."
You're equating voting (political participation) to going topless in a society that has serious problems demeaning women and seeing women's bodies in a vulgar way, including breasts. It´s clear the two issues are very different.
Why aren't men complaining they need to liberate themselves from tan lines caused by swimming trunks if tan lines are such an oppressive thing in themselves? Or are you suggesting just tan lines over the upper half of the body are oppressive to humans? Where did that norm come from?
You see, your statement "She's trying to have the same right" is not correct because she is not trying to have the same *right*, since this isn't a right, it's an attempt to mimic a norm, a convention. And because of the very different sexualized and non-sexualized meanings that we have for women's and men's chests,
it's not the same if both go topless. If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people. Only by changing internal meaning could a possible liberation happen, such as the indigenous communities who see the human body differently than we do.
However, in our culture, she would only reinforce a slutty meaning for women's bodies and selves. And we already have too much of that problem.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:50 PM
Luke,
Since my information on same sex harassment contradicts yours,
1) does it mean you have never witnessed a single incident of same sex harassment? (defined here as unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior, usually repeated, but not necessarily) I have, many.
2) does it mean you have never talked to someone who has experienced same sex harassment? witnessed it? I have, many.
3) does it mean you have never read about any incident of same sex harassment? I have, several.
How many of your studies cover the whole world? the whole nation? Since you are making affirmations that you seem to know what's happening everywhere regarding same sex harassment, your "studies" need to cover a lot of ground, for many years, and in depth for you to prove solely with them that SSH is not happening anywhere. Which studies are these?
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 10:09 PM
"Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?"
Look, she's not saying you HAVE to go topless- this isn't a requirment. She's saying there should not be laws that restrict womyn from sunbathing topless because there are no suck laws in place for men.
Again, all you are doing is repeating that the norms exist! I want to know why they exist- You say there are practicle reasons, i want to know what they are-
and it's BECAUSE society see's a woman breasts avulgar that we have these laws- Forcing womyn to cover up never says anything good about there bodies (before you start- yes YOU may say good things about your body by covering YOURSELF but that is rather different than HAVING A LAW that says you AND ONLY YOU NOT THE BOYS have to do it!)
"And because of the very different sexualized and non-sexualized meanings that we have for women's and men's chests,"
YES NOW TELL ME WHY THOSE EXIST!
"If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people"
A- That is a completely unwarranted statement B- who cares, shes not trying to- She's just trying to tan without lines! Men can do it. She want to as well- AND THERE IS A LAW PREVENTING HER- you aren't dealing with this LAW thing!!!!
OK when you site some studies- i'll talk to you about studies- they appearently span the whole world, it should be no large task for you to give some reference material.
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 11:23 PM
Luke: "Why is that? No one seems to call the men immodest. In fact it's usually the accepted norm that men are topless around swiming pools and beaches- And there are legal differences as you have seen. Even if we assuem that men that walk around topless are immodest, why is it legal for men to be immodest and not womyn?"
That's because the men aren't being immodest by going without a top: they don't have female breasts!
Posted by: KJS at March 9, 2005 12:28 AM
Luke, I'm totally confused now. I was talking about women. You're talking about something called "womyn." I've never heard of those. Do they have breasts, and if so, are they different from, or the same as, those of men and women? And if so, if their breasts are different, wherein arises your assumption that they should be treated as the same? Anyhow, I guess it's irrelevant, because whatever "womyn" are, they must not be human, because all adult humans are either men or women.
Anyhow, the discussion was about men and women, not about whatever "womyn" are. Try to keep up.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 9, 2005 10:34 AM
"That's because the men aren't being immodest by going without a top: they don't have female breasts!"
So, we are going to be back to the orginal question-
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE FEMALE BREAST THAT MAKES IT TABOO TO EXPOSE, WHILE THE MALE BREAST CAN JUST BE FLASHED AROUND AT WILL!
Yeah, Jane I know you're trying to be cute, but really that just made you come off as a bitch! I mean, pretending to be ignorant is one thing, glorifying ignorance is a step beyond what i'm willing to put up with nicely.
Posted by: Luke at March 9, 2005 11:35 AM
You're the one who thinks that mispelling words changes the world (or accomplishes ANYTHING at all other than making the mispeller look trivial for that matter), and I'M the one who looks ignorant.
Now THAT'S funny.
BTW, as for the rest of your post, now you're finally asking the right question. Merely insisting that there is no reason to make a distinction between two things that are clearly different doesn't cut it.
The answer is that women's breasts are sexualized in Western culture. You can cry at the moon, rant at the universe, try to see if mispelling something helps, and it won't change that little fact.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 9, 2005 04:05 PM
me:"If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people"
Luke: That is a completely unwarranted statement
=====================================
Totally warranted. Seeing a woman topless does nothing to change the tremendously ingrained sexualized meaning of breasts in someone who has that meaning ingrained already, which is just about everyone in our culture.
Regarding where do the norms come from, you know where, history, tradition, religion, values, in short, our culture.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:07 AM
me:"Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?"
luke:Look, she's not saying you HAVE to go topless- this isn't a requirment. She's saying there should not be laws that restrict womyn from sunbathing topless because there are no suck laws in place for men.
============================
Which woman goes topless does not change the fact that this woman will not be perceived with respect by a lot of people, she will be sexually objectified and demeaned. And with that she will reinforce these attitudes towards other women as well. It's like a catch-22 situation.
luke:
Again, all you are doing is repeating that the norms exist! I want to know why they exist- You say there are practicle reasons, i want to know what they are-
and it's BECAUSE society see's a woman breasts avulgar that we have these laws-
============================
Changing the law won't change the entire ingrained culture that we have. It's like the prohibition. You change the law to prohibit alcohol and wait to see if people change their attitudes towards drinking. Doesn't happen like that. Why you don't care about the fact that women are sexually objectified and demeaned in society is where the problem lies. These bad attitudes are what needs to change, not the fact that a woman has some swimsuit mark or not.
You know what this debate reminded me of? The women who have complained that the dress code for men in the corporate world completely unsexualizes them and "protects" them, by covering the entire body in a lose fitting way. And that women's business attire continues to sexually objectify women, with shorter skirts, tight pieces, revealing garments. When you think about it, the only difference between a burkha and a man's suit is the head cover. Yet one is a symbol of freedom/power and the other of oppression.
And here we have this "other side of the same coin" woman saying that she needs to uncover just like a man to
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:41 AM
And here we have this "other side of the same coin" woman saying that she needs to uncover just like a man to be "free." One says she needs to cover just like a man, the other says she needs to uncover just like a man. The standard is always the man. Why?
On another note, in all of these questions, what I thought was the most interesting is to think where is meaning localized? And also regarding feelings of vulnerability and oppression and clothing.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:43 AM
"The answer is that women's breasts are sexualized in Western culture."
WHY?
and WHY is the a justification for having laws that treat womyn and men differently?
"These bad attitudes are what needs to change, not the fact that a woman has some swimsuit mark or not."
Ok, I agree. But why is that a reason for having two sexes being treated unequally by the LAW? Are you denying that the legal inequitty is part of why we have different attitudes? How is arresting a sun bathing womyn (who is topless) going to change the way society sexualizes female breasts?
"The standard is always the man. Why?"
Not a bad question- A response to this situation could be to change the laws that allow men to expose there nipples at beaches. It think that would be counter intuitive to the point of desexualizing a womyn's breasts but it would make the womyn the standard instead of the man. Can we imagine a society where men are required to where stupid little bikini tops to cover there nipples!
And it's occured to me that it really is the nipples and not the breasts that womyn can't expose! You'll see pleanty of breasts at a beach!
Posted by: Luke at March 10, 2005 11:13 AM
.
I'm going to copy here my comment to qkl re stupid versus intelligent people because, by coincidence, it's pertinent:
qkl: "Stupid people learn more from intelligent people than the opposite."
me: You know, this statement made me stop to think about other things. I think I know what u mean, like in a class, a bright student that has do something and does it well and sets an example that other students can learn something from.
However, I started to think about something that is in a different context. "Stupid" people (the ones with stupid attitudes - not simply lacking factual information on a subject) rarely learn much, that is, stupid people remain stupid and they usually dont learn from intelligent people, even if they are together. In fact, stupid people usually dislike and/or despise intelligent people because intelligent people can critique stupid people way over their heads.
Or sometimes, the stupid will idolize what they think are "very" intelligent people, not that they would know how to gauge the intelligence, like a doctor or a consultant that can sound very intelligent without necessarily being so.
I've already written about why the Austrian museum people are so stupid in many related posts (check out also the posts they link to, if interested): Offensive Last Supper Ad Banned by Churches in France; The Power of a Look; There's more to Nipplegate than meets the naked eye; What has the women´s movement achieved that remained today in our lives? ; Hardcore Hypocrisy - CSUC Fraternity's Porn Film Angers University Officials; Not Sure What Kind of Revolution Has Hit Iran ; The Disappearing Act of Female Athletes´ Clothing; What Liberals Just Don´t Get - It´s Your Destructive Culture; Equal Topless Protection in California ; Liberals and Aggression;
Here is a discussion I had with a hardcore liberal (Luke) at WorldMag re nakedness:
me:And on a similar vein...
As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a lawyer's group is pressing for a "topless sunbathing" bill at the request of a female attorney who insists that it is sex discrimination to allow men, but not women, to go topless in public.
"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," Liana Johnsson said.
=================================
Is it something in the California water supply? Don't we have more important issues than these braindead "pseudo-equality" contests?
I imagine this attorney is already consumed with her next equality bill, "Stand up for your rights!" This is the one about the state violating your equal right to utilize restrooms openly standing up alongside other women.
We know... at some point, men became liberated and stood up and women didn't.
Or maybe it was the other way around, women sat down, or they both stood up and then sat down, I don´t know, I wasn´t around at the time. Anyways, time to "Stand to Reason!" Aren´t we glad Liana is here to do it?
Posted by: Alessandra at March 6, 2005 09:21 AM
Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 12:08 PM
Luke: "Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?"
Ever notice something a little bit different about the structure of the female breast?
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 01:03 PM
KJS, please explain what exactly about the structure of the female breast makes it less suitible to public display. why should I merely except that it's difference makes it some how more obscene when exposed. after all my ear is far more different form my hand than the male breast is to the female, yet these difference does not seem to affect the way I can display them.
Also does your analysis take fat men, whose own breast look very much like a womyn's into account. Are these breast less suitable for diplay? What about a very flat chested womyn? Shouldn't she meet the structure you say is needed before one can walk around the beach topless?
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 02:50 PM
Luke: "Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?"
Ever notice something a little bit different about the structure of the female breast?
============================
Indeed KJS, and did you ever notice that these "liberate their breasts" people are always the first to call indigenous women hideous for having bare breasts below their waists?
Apparently there are some indigenous communities where the women carry their babies high on their backs, and they swing around a breast to feed the baby, while the mother continues working.
What is the reaction of these "breast liberator" people when you tell them this? EEEwwww.
As if there could be anything more natural and maternal than breastfeeding and having the breast elongate because of this function. Our culture continues to be just as demented about certain body parts and their shapes as the Chinese foot-binding people were.
Same thing with body-hair shaving. I've always found it intriguing how enormously significant shaving is within our culture and why it has become one of the biggest male/female differentiators. (I'm not saying it needs to be different, just noting how significant a symbol it is).
Posted by: Alessandra at March 6, 2005 02:58 PM
Luke: "KJS, please explain what exactly about the structure of the female breast makes it less suitible to public display. why should I merely except that it's difference makes it some how more obscene when exposed. after all my ear is far more different form my hand than the male breast is to the female, yet these difference does not seem to affect the way I can display them."
Your lack of logic is on display once again, but I know that logic is an intolerably oppressive force to you. Nonetheless, I press on. The breast itself is not obscene, and you would do well not to assume that I have some irrational horror of the female body. However, basic standards of modesty dictate that body parts whose usual function is either to excrete or secrete remain covered. The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe. This is the difference in structure to which I refer, not the mere physical shape.
The move to "liberate women" by insisting that they be able to uncover in just the same way as men is just another development in the trend downplaying the real differences that exist between men and women. All that it ends up doing, ultimately, is masculinizing women and feminizing men, making for a rather confused society.
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 03:55 PM
Luke, do you actually remember the 1960's? I didn't think you were older than me. If a person is dressed as a woman but is actually a surgically altered man, and wants to use the women's bathroom, how would anybody know this isn't a woman? How do any of us know that the people who use the same restrooms as us actually have the same kind of plumbing as we do? And what business is it of ours anyway if they have their body parts natural born or surgically enhanced or completely renovated? If they look like they are women and they use the women's restroom and they behave respectfully like most women do, then what is the problem? I think transgendered people should quit trying to force the world to treat them with kid gloves and act like normal people, get on with their lives. But if they make bathroom gender neutral then I will find an alley, a dumpster, a coffee can, some other place to risk arrest rather than stand in line in a common bathroom with strange men. That is so completely offensive and shameful to me. Where are some people's sense of decency?
Posted by: Lucia at March 6, 2005 04:30 PM
An amusing conversation where people's hang-ups conderning body parts and functions are on display.
The suit in California is similar to one lauched in Onatario several years ago in which the woman won the right to appear topless in public as long as it wasn't for finiancial gain. The sky has fallen as unfortuantely not enough women have decided to exercise this particualr right.
Inherent in the above and in any discussion of body parts/funcitons in the public arena is the desire to demystify and/or desexualize the human body. In many cases, most people become more comfortable with their selves and others around them and less sacrosanct in view of their privacy.
the parnoid tendcies exhibited here in regards to public toilets has been propagated in most parts by the media's generated climate of fear. By reporting every gruesome and oddly sexualized assault (to drive sales and advertsing), the odds of such attacks are grossly over percieved. The result has been a culturally genreated fear of the 'other' be s/he sexuully different, racially different or simply strange looking.
Posted by: hrw at March 6, 2005 05:45 PM
Alessandra, that doesn't sound gross to me at all-
"The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe."
If you have a surgical breast enhancement than the breast can't serve that function anymore! Can we expose fake female breasts? Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts. And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby.
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 08:15 PM
Luke: "Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts."
Pores are not a body part. And it's patently obvious why we don't insist on covering up noses, eyes, and mouths, whose usual function is not to secrete or excrete at any rate.
Luke: "And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby."
That's because it can be uncovered when it's necessary to use, much as you can unzip to take a piss in the bathroom.
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 08:50 PM
None of those functions as reason why we cover up female breasts! You all know the answer you just don't want to say it. "girls that show there titties are whores! but it's ok for boys because we have double standards!" SIMPLE---
But you people would rather talk about secretions because you know the actual answer sounds stupid!
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 09:52 PM
Hmmm Luke is pretending boys and girls have the same anatomy, then abusing people for noticing he's wrong. How amusing.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 7, 2005 10:43 AM
Luke: the difference between male and female breasts is that male breasts belong to men, and female breasts belong to women.
No other reason to make a distinction really needs to be "justified." The fact that men AREN'T women and women AREN'T men is enough basis on which to make a distinction.
Now whether you choose to agree with making that distinction is another matter, but if you're going to argue about it, you'd need to show why it is actually wrong to make it.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 7, 2005 11:10 AM
Luke: "But you people would rather talk about secretions because you know the actual answer sounds stupid!"
I did mention something about "modesty," didn't I? Women who walk around baring their breasts are extraordinarily immodest.
But really, Luke, do you think we all ought to run around naked? Do you have some reason men and women should cover up at all? All you're doing is being your typical, shrill, unreasoning self.
Posted by: KJS at March 7, 2005 12:04 PM
hrw:
the parnoid tendcies exhibited here in regards to public toilets has been propagated in most parts by the media's generated climate of fear.
==============================
Actually if you take into account toilets, locker rooms, gyms, and barracks - this is no paranoia. There are a considerable number of same sex harassment cases happening all the time, thanks to homos and bisexuals. Most of the cases don't get formally complained about, most never go to trial, and most never make it in the media. If the media ever decided to make a scandal out of this issue,
they could broadcast 50 cases a day easily. It would be just like the Catholic Church abuse scandal, everyone saying, "why didn't anyone speak about this before..."
Posted by: Alessandra at March 7, 2005 12:28 PM
Alessandra,
If all this same-sex harassment is going on "under the radar", how is it that you know so much about it?
I'm a straight male who's belonged to gyms and athletic clubs all my life and I've never observed even one incident of the harassment you claim is so rampant. And none of my male friends have either. My wife belongs to the Y, and she said she doesn't see the things going on that you claim.
Also, if you're a woman, how do you know what goes on in a men's locker room anyway?
What I really suspect is that you're engaging the in the all too familiar anti-gay "baiting". Such behavior is more appropriate for godhatesfags.com.
Posted by: Remington at March 7, 2005 06:28 PM
Jane, we are talkign about why it is ok for men to show there breasts but not womyn. Perhaps you were confused, but i was never saying that there were no differences, only that the reasons those difference translate into different costomes about sun bathing is very stupid. Try to say on top of things please.
"Women who walk around baring their breasts are extraordinarily immodest."
"how is it that you know so much about it?'
Oh, Remington Alessandra is very in the know, if you check the archives for a trhead called "slippery slope" you'll find out all sorts of interesting things about gay judges---Alessandra is actually a fount of information. Actually i think i saved it on my computer! I'll just repost it!
Why is that? No one seems to call the men immodest. In fact it's usually the accepted norm that men are topless around swiming pools and beaches- And there are legal differences as you have seen. Even if we assuem that men that walk around topless are immodest, why is it legal for men to be immodest and not womyn?
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 12:08 AM
Remington, how many children have you observed being abused?
And if you haven't, or you are going to lie that you haven't, then we have to take your great "observation experience of not seeing any child being abused" as what constitutes reality?
I'm sure you've seen women being abused and raped, since you love pornography, not that you would care to know when abuse was happening in pornography production, but let's leave out porn and ask you how many women have you watched being raped? And if you haven't that means no woman was ever raped?
And, just to diminish your ignorance and homo-obsession, there are reports and studies about same sex sexual harassment. You don't have to be a man to get info on male same sex harassment or to view it first hand.
I also don't doubt that even if you had your eyes open to a scene of homo harassment, you wouldn't see it, cognitively speaking. Your homo-fanaticism overrides reality by a long-shot.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:17 AM
Remington,
Also, you should talk to more people other than your wife and your 2 friends if you would like to know what happens in the world. But a fanatical bigot doesn't need information to shape his views, you're like that saying, you never let facts and information get in the way of your convictions.
And there is another interesting thing about observation, people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:33 AM
Luke,
Homo saunas, SM, rape, promiscuity, reckless spread of STDs, child and adolescent abuse, sexual
harassment, battering, murder, prostitution are all real problems that exist in the GLBT population. It sure makes you uncomfortable to read about it, doesn't it?
Your homo-fanaticism is based, in part, on a great irresponsibility and inability to deal with reality.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:37 AM
"there are reports and studies about same sex sexual harassment."
Can you provide us with links to some? the hournal articles they are published in, or even to some abstracts?
"But a fanatical bigot doesn't need information to shape his views,"
HA ha ha ha---Thaken in concert with your little story above this is really funny!
"people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either."
What's you warrant for this claim? I mean, I understand you wanna accuse remington of sexual harassment, but do you have any reasons why people should believe this is true?
"It sure makes you uncomfortable to read about it, doesn't it?"
Actually reading your littel story makes me laugh like crazy- Your bigotry is surely not informed by fact and your depiction of the adverage gay person is all the proof I need. Do you even think it's POSSIBLE to spread HIV to 50 people in one night? I love the fact that you go on these rants! They remind me not to take the world, and especially conservative christians to seriously. I mean, do you think you would be able to get even the Family Research Counsil to validate your depiction! Girl, Exodus International would call you crazy! Seriously, is your name Alessandra Phelps?
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 11:56 AM
Luke:
"Can you provide us with links to some? the hournal articles they are published in, or even to some abstracts?"
==============================
You mean you're so ignorant about sexual harassment studies you haven't read a single one? You don't even know where to look for them? You've never read a confidential report on the subject?
Maybe you should go to school, Luke. Or ask for your local librarian to teach you how to do document research. Or you can post here that great article you read somewhere that says there is no same sexual harassment in the world. Nor rape, nor prostitution, nor battering, nor murder, nor abuse, nor anything else you have trouble facing.
===================================
"people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either."
Luke: "What's you warrant for this claim? I mean, I understand you wanna accuse remington of sexual harassment, but do you have any reasons why people should believe this is true? "
I'm not accusing Remington of sexual harassment, just noting that a person can be in denial of what they practice and consequently of what other people practice as well. My warrant is called human psychology - specifically questions of denial.
Luke: "Do you even think it's POSSIBLE to spread HIV to 50 people in one night? I love the fact that you go on these rants! "
If you took the fictional story that is full of examples of real violence in the GLBT population as a factual account of just one person, you missed the point.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 01:04 PM
Alessandra, that doesn't sound gross to me at all-
"The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe."
If you have a surgical breast enhancement than the breast can't serve that function anymore! Can we expose fake female breasts? Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts. And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby.
================================
Luke, you're pointing out to cultural conventions. There are both practical reasons and just other cultural reasons why we have the dress norms we do. The thing is they are very deeply ingrained. Just like other private parts. A man who goes around naked in our culture is not liberating himself, he is offending other people. A woman going topless does nothing in terms of "liberation." I think what society faults more is in respecting women, listening to women, fostering women's dignity. Showing breasts doesn't accomplish that.
It's just aping men. That's why I don't think it's "liberating," it's more like the penis envy complex. It wouldn't be different than saying that women had to wear a suit and tie to liberate themselves.
Aside from questions of modesty, which play here as well with the breast thing. Our culture has serious problems with degrading women and part of that is done through oppressive slutty dressing, very little immodest dressing, sexually objectifying dressing.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 01:15 PM
"You mean you're so ignorant about sexual harassment studies you haven't read a single one?"
I would like to know which ones you have read, please. You were after all the first one to mention these reports- What i have read would seem to conflict a great deal with your portrayal. You could share your sources with me, and continue this dialogue or we can stop talking to each other-
"If you took the fictional story that is full of examples of real violence in the GLBT population as a factual account of just one person, you missed the point."
well what was the pint of saying it was 50 people, Alessandra. Do enlighten us! Could it have something to with the fact that a gay who gives HIV to 50 people is more evil than one who gives it to just one? And you did want to portray the most evil gay man you could didn't you? Given that your story is a lie, what is it's purpose?
"There are ...practical reasons ...why we have the dress norms we do."
She's sunbathing in the summer! Assuming she's wearing sunscreen please give on praticle reason for a LAW require her breasts be covered.
And i'm not refuting that there ARE cultural norms- I'll give you that one. My question to which you all have had ZERO answer is--WHY DO THOSE NORMS EXIST?
"I think what society faults more is in respecting women, listening to women, fostering women's dignity. Showing breasts doesn't accomplish that."
The womyn isn't trying to FOSTER DIGNITY- She's trying to have the same rights, to sunbath without tan lines on her chest that men have- It's not about dignity- it's about the "undignified" things we allow men to do, but BAR womyn from- In our history, one of those "undignified" things was VOTING- Conservatives made the arguement that politics was a nasty place that would not bring your "dignity" to womyn and so refused suffrage.
"It wouldn't be different than saying that women had to wear a suit and tie to liberate themselves.
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 02:02 PM
Luke,
No - Alessandra is a "fag hater". She would be in good company with Rev. Fred Phelps. There is no reasoning with an ignorant hatemonger like her.
Posted by: Remington at March 8, 2005 09:46 PM
The womyn isn't trying to FOSTER DIGNITY- She's trying to have the same rights, to sunbath without tan lines on her chest that men have- It's not about dignity- it's about the "undignified" things we allow men to do, but BAR womyn from
=========================================
But my point is if you degrade people in society, if you trample on their dignity, you have done harm. If you don't foster dignity, you also do harm. We need dignity, composure, modesty. Fostering dignity is much more important than some lack of tan lines. BTW, why do you think tan lines are bad? Isn't that just a silly beauty convention you adopted? Also, why is someone who is claiming to be fighting for "equality of rights" not concerned about dignity and respect? Isn't that a major contradiction? Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?
"My question to which you all have had ZERO answer is--WHY DO THOSE NORMS EXIST?"
That's not true. There were answers. One was, "Luke, you're pointing out to cultural conventions. There are both practical reasons and just other cultural reasons why we have the dress norms we do."
You're equating voting (political participation) to going topless in a society that has serious problems demeaning women and seeing women's bodies in a vulgar way, including breasts. It´s clear the two issues are very different.
Why aren't men complaining they need to liberate themselves from tan lines caused by swimming trunks if tan lines are such an oppressive thing in themselves? Or are you suggesting just tan lines over the upper half of the body are oppressive to humans? Where did that norm come from?
You see, your statement "She's trying to have the same right" is not correct because she is not trying to have the same *right*, since this isn't a right, it's an attempt to mimic a norm, a convention. And because of the very different sexualized and non-sexualized meanings that we have for women's and men's chests,
it's not the same if both go topless. If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people. Only by changing internal meaning could a possible liberation happen, such as the indigenous communities who see the human body differently than we do.
However, in our culture, she would only reinforce a slutty meaning for women's bodies and selves. And we already have too much of that problem.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:50 PM
Luke,
Since my information on same sex harassment contradicts yours,
1) does it mean you have never witnessed a single incident of same sex harassment? (defined here as unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior, usually repeated, but not necessarily) I have, many.
2) does it mean you have never talked to someone who has experienced same sex harassment? witnessed it? I have, many.
3) does it mean you have never read about any incident of same sex harassment? I have, several.
How many of your studies cover the whole world? the whole nation? Since you are making affirmations that you seem to know what's happening everywhere regarding same sex harassment, your "studies" need to cover a lot of ground, for many years, and in depth for you to prove solely with them that SSH is not happening anywhere. Which studies are these?
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 10:09 PM
"Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?"
Look, she's not saying you HAVE to go topless- this isn't a requirment. She's saying there should not be laws that restrict womyn from sunbathing topless because there are no suck laws in place for men.
Again, all you are doing is repeating that the norms exist! I want to know why they exist- You say there are practicle reasons, i want to know what they are-
and it's BECAUSE society see's a woman breasts avulgar that we have these laws- Forcing womyn to cover up never says anything good about there bodies (before you start- yes YOU may say good things about your body by covering YOURSELF but that is rather different than HAVING A LAW that says you AND ONLY YOU NOT THE BOYS have to do it!)
"And because of the very different sexualized and non-sexualized meanings that we have for women's and men's chests,"
YES NOW TELL ME WHY THOSE EXIST!
"If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people"
A- That is a completely unwarranted statement B- who cares, shes not trying to- She's just trying to tan without lines! Men can do it. She want to as well- AND THERE IS A LAW PREVENTING HER- you aren't dealing with this LAW thing!!!!
OK when you site some studies- i'll talk to you about studies- they appearently span the whole world, it should be no large task for you to give some reference material.
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 11:23 PM
Luke: "Why is that? No one seems to call the men immodest. In fact it's usually the accepted norm that men are topless around swiming pools and beaches- And there are legal differences as you have seen. Even if we assuem that men that walk around topless are immodest, why is it legal for men to be immodest and not womyn?"
That's because the men aren't being immodest by going without a top: they don't have female breasts!
Posted by: KJS at March 9, 2005 12:28 AM
Luke, I'm totally confused now. I was talking about women. You're talking about something called "womyn." I've never heard of those. Do they have breasts, and if so, are they different from, or the same as, those of men and women? And if so, if their breasts are different, wherein arises your assumption that they should be treated as the same? Anyhow, I guess it's irrelevant, because whatever "womyn" are, they must not be human, because all adult humans are either men or women.
Anyhow, the discussion was about men and women, not about whatever "womyn" are. Try to keep up.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 9, 2005 10:34 AM
"That's because the men aren't being immodest by going without a top: they don't have female breasts!"
So, we are going to be back to the orginal question-
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE FEMALE BREAST THAT MAKES IT TABOO TO EXPOSE, WHILE THE MALE BREAST CAN JUST BE FLASHED AROUND AT WILL!
Yeah, Jane I know you're trying to be cute, but really that just made you come off as a bitch! I mean, pretending to be ignorant is one thing, glorifying ignorance is a step beyond what i'm willing to put up with nicely.
Posted by: Luke at March 9, 2005 11:35 AM
You're the one who thinks that mispelling words changes the world (or accomplishes ANYTHING at all other than making the mispeller look trivial for that matter), and I'M the one who looks ignorant.
Now THAT'S funny.
BTW, as for the rest of your post, now you're finally asking the right question. Merely insisting that there is no reason to make a distinction between two things that are clearly different doesn't cut it.
The answer is that women's breasts are sexualized in Western culture. You can cry at the moon, rant at the universe, try to see if mispelling something helps, and it won't change that little fact.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 9, 2005 04:05 PM
me:"If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people"
Luke: That is a completely unwarranted statement
=====================================
Totally warranted. Seeing a woman topless does nothing to change the tremendously ingrained sexualized meaning of breasts in someone who has that meaning ingrained already, which is just about everyone in our culture.
Regarding where do the norms come from, you know where, history, tradition, religion, values, in short, our culture.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:07 AM
me:"Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?"
luke:Look, she's not saying you HAVE to go topless- this isn't a requirment. She's saying there should not be laws that restrict womyn from sunbathing topless because there are no suck laws in place for men.
============================
Which woman goes topless does not change the fact that this woman will not be perceived with respect by a lot of people, she will be sexually objectified and demeaned. And with that she will reinforce these attitudes towards other women as well. It's like a catch-22 situation.
luke:
Again, all you are doing is repeating that the norms exist! I want to know why they exist- You say there are practicle reasons, i want to know what they are-
and it's BECAUSE society see's a woman breasts avulgar that we have these laws-
============================
Changing the law won't change the entire ingrained culture that we have. It's like the prohibition. You change the law to prohibit alcohol and wait to see if people change their attitudes towards drinking. Doesn't happen like that. Why you don't care about the fact that women are sexually objectified and demeaned in society is where the problem lies. These bad attitudes are what needs to change, not the fact that a woman has some swimsuit mark or not.
You know what this debate reminded me of? The women who have complained that the dress code for men in the corporate world completely unsexualizes them and "protects" them, by covering the entire body in a lose fitting way. And that women's business attire continues to sexually objectify women, with shorter skirts, tight pieces, revealing garments. When you think about it, the only difference between a burkha and a man's suit is the head cover. Yet one is a symbol of freedom/power and the other of oppression.
And here we have this "other side of the same coin" woman saying that she needs to uncover just like a man to
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:41 AM
And here we have this "other side of the same coin" woman saying that she needs to uncover just like a man to be "free." One says she needs to cover just like a man, the other says she needs to uncover just like a man. The standard is always the man. Why?
On another note, in all of these questions, what I thought was the most interesting is to think where is meaning localized? And also regarding feelings of vulnerability and oppression and clothing.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:43 AM
"The answer is that women's breasts are sexualized in Western culture."
WHY?
and WHY is the a justification for having laws that treat womyn and men differently?
"These bad attitudes are what needs to change, not the fact that a woman has some swimsuit mark or not."
Ok, I agree. But why is that a reason for having two sexes being treated unequally by the LAW? Are you denying that the legal inequitty is part of why we have different attitudes? How is arresting a sun bathing womyn (who is topless) going to change the way society sexualizes female breasts?
"The standard is always the man. Why?"
Not a bad question- A response to this situation could be to change the laws that allow men to expose there nipples at beaches. It think that would be counter intuitive to the point of desexualizing a womyn's breasts but it would make the womyn the standard instead of the man. Can we imagine a society where men are required to where stupid little bikini tops to cover there nipples!
And it's occured to me that it really is the nipples and not the breasts that womyn can't expose! You'll see pleanty of breasts at a beach!
Posted by: Luke at March 10, 2005 11:13 AM
.
